No Fundamental Right to Marry: Centre defends inducting only unmarried men, women as Judge Advocate General

Contending that the Constitution of India does not stipulate Right to marry as a Fundamental Right, the Central Government has defended its policy of inducting only unmarried men and women as Judge Advocate General in the Indian Army..Quoting its provisions with respect to maternity leave, paternity leave and other benefits, Centre has nonetheless clarified that the Indian Army is supportive of the institution of marriage..The embargo on marriage is only restricted till the period of recruitment and pre-commissioning training, and once that period is over, candidates, whether male or female, are free to enter matrimonial life, it has stated..The averment was made by the Central Government in an affidavit filed in a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate Kush Kalra..Kalra had moved the High Court against a Notification declaring married men and women as ineligible for recruitment to the post of JAG in the Indian Army..Explaining the rationale behind the policy, Centre has stated that the decision was imperative to “ensure basic military training“..The pre-commissioning training involves a high amount of physical and mental stress, strain and rigours of military life. Since married cadets may seek leave to fulfill their matrimonial obligations, it would result in discontinuation of their training, it is speculated..The Centre has contended that the recruitment policy of the Army is well within the Constitutional framework as well as the mandate of the Army Act. Claiming that the policy is not in violation of any Fundamental Right, Centre has stated that Article 33 of the Constitution has given certain exceptions to Armed forces in their enforcement of fundamental rights..It is further averred that any policy or rules pertaining to terms and conditions of services as well as eligibility criteria for Army is formulated by the Central Government keeping in view the effectiveness, functional and operational requirements of Army..Therefore, allowing the PIL would result in overlooking the public interest of 130 million people of India for the personal interest of a thousand few, Centre states..Centre has also denied all claims of institutional discrimination on gender grounds as well as violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, claiming that the policy is imposed on both males and females, across all sections of the army and not just JAG..The matter would be heard by the High Court on July 18..Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.